Trees and Balance

  • Thread starter Thread starter NickfromWI
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 119
  • Views Views 18K
Merle Nelson said:
Pelorus all the street trees (responsibility of) in CA was given over to the property owner here at one point some years ago. If those trees lift sidewalk the property owner is also responsible for thousands in sidewalk repair. I can't believe that one got through the courts.
Click to expand...
That's a weird law. They gave them the trees but not the dirt? Any place I've ever lived or worked, anything growing on the right of way belonged to the governing municipality.
 
I agree it's a really weird situation, re. the property owner's responsibility of tree maintenance for a tree owned by the city, on a city right-of-way.
Weird also, imo, is that the bugs only killed half the tree, leaving the other half for later consumption.
Nick, if you do work on that tree, and a year, or a couple of years from now it crunches a young mom and her kids out for a drive, would you not get entangled in a legal vise? It is only gonna eventually fail in one direction, right? (or die), or, would any such failure be considered an "Act of God" beyond human control / prediction?
I think the average Joe on the street might well think that if half the tree gets zapped, (removed) the other half leaning over the street should also. Mebbe Joe has more common sense, and better intuition of how the world works than educated minds.
 
Merle Nelson said:
all the street trees (responsibility of) in CA was given over to the property owner here at one point some years ago.
Click to expand...

Merle, looking over websites, it still seems that whether the city or the owners of the homes fronting the parkways are responsible for maintaining the trees, depends on the regs in each city, not a state thing. The Los Angeles public works website and urban forest one, still informs that the city is responsible, and removals can only be done with a permit. Nick would know, I guess that has changed. Some California sites show the cities handling maintenance, with some odds and ends where the property owner can get involved with pruning if they think the budget for maintenance is insufficient for how they think a tree should be cared for in the parkway in front of their residence. Was a recent state wide regulation enacted?
 
NickfromWI said:
....So the question: in your opinion, does cutting off half a tree destabilize it in some way where you've now created more hazard by removing the dead half. My plan would be to just cut half the codom and inject the other half ....
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that you are asking the right question. How about, with or without the dying half, is this tree stable enough for it's location.
 
I would not be happy leaving the tree standing. Aesthetically poor & structurly questionable, as I would not be happy with the integrity of the roots under the foot path. I also feel that the loss of dampening from the removal of the dead side could increase the torsion on the stem when wind loaded .
Just my tupence worth :)
 
Have we confirmed that this tree is bark beetle attacked and not sidewalk construction attacked?

I thought roots all around the tree helped to hold the tree up working in tension and compression as the wind blow and the tree sways. If that half has died from root disturbance I would say the tree is becoming less and less stable as it dies and is unable to produce new and effective roots on that side and that cutting one half of it off will only hasten it's inevitable demise.

If it is a half beetle killed tree for whatever reason than as the roots that were keeping that side alive decompose I would think the tree would continue to become less and less stable and cutting down half of it would make it less stable due to balance. Despite only half the tree being dead the pics look like the tree isn't co-Dom to the ground but has a union that becomes one complete trunk before ground level so I would see the sidewalk side even though dead still giving some balance to the tree.

Another question to those that think that the removal of one half will not effect the integrity of the other. Where or how do you think the street side of the tree would/could fail. Ground level? Or split down the co dom?
 
Aside from the tree itself, a part of formal tree risk assessment is the location. Would that be considered a hazardous location for the tree to fail?
 
Looks like a residential, low speed road. No stop sign visible. Not a huge risk. I wouldn't want to leave it either but if I gave the client my opinion of removal and they still wanted to keep the other half I think I'd leave it. We are not the risk managers, the homeowners are. Here, the city would own that tree but the homeowner would be responsible for maintenance. The city arb would require that tree be removed so there wouldn't be an issue. Not sure how it works in L.A.
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #60
Limbrat said:
That's a weird law. They gave them the trees but not the dirt? Any place I've ever lived or worked, anything growing on the right of way belonged to the governing municipality.
Click to expand...

Yep- but as of about 8 years ago or so, the city said made it the home owners responsibility

Pelorus said:
Weird also, imo, is that the bugs only killed half the tree, leaving the other half for later consumption.
...Nick, if you do work on that tree, and a year, or a couple of years from now it crunches a young mom and her kids out for a drive, would you not get entangled in a legal vise? It is only gonna eventually fail in one direction, right? ....
Click to expand...

The beetle holes are heaviest on the weakest trees, and weakest parts of the trees. You can see them in the left side of the tree, but almost none on the right side.
Regarding if the tree fails, then I show that we recommended removal, that we advised of risks, show steps we took to mitigate risk, and let the insurance company hash it out.

woodworkingboy said:
The Los Angeles public works website and urban forest one, still informs that the city is responsible, and removals can only be done with a permit.
Click to expand...

It is correct that removal require a permit. Permits are only granted for COMPLETELY dead trees. We've submitted permit requests, reports and videos showing SUPER hazardous trees...but then the inspector goes and says, "look- that's a green leaf. this tree is still alive." Then they deny the request.

squisher said:
Have we confirmed that this tree is bark beetle attacked and not sidewalk construction attacked?
Click to expand...

Yes. It's been confirmed. I think that the cutting of the roots weakened the left side of the tree, then the beetles hopped into the weaker part of the tree. We'll inject the good looking part and sit back and see what happens.

sotc said:
Looks like a residential, low speed road. No stop sign visible. Not a huge risk. I wouldn't want to leave it either but if I gave the client my opinion of removal and they still wanted to keep the other half I think I'd leave it. We are not the risk managers, the homeowners are. Here, the city would own that tree but the homeowner would be responsible for maintenance. The city arb would require that tree be removed so there wouldn't be an issue. Not sure how it works in L.A.
Click to expand...

And that's the way it SHOULD be. Right now City of LA only acts on actual fallen trees. They've crunched the numbers and decided its cheaper to roll the dice and cross their fingers. They cut their urban forestry division by like 80% and are just cleaning up messes these days.
 
I'm not sure of exactly what and when it happened. I just know that we used to have to get city permission to even prune street trees based on the idea that they were their trees. Now anything that goes wrong with them or damage to sidewalk they seem to be intimidating owners into paying for.

I have heard of about 4 sidewalk repairs paid for by home owners in the last few years in cities around me, $2,000 up to $9K worth of repair work.

It just totaly amazes me. I would think a lawyer would have a field day with all the 'proof' that the city viewed them as their property one day and foisted responsibility off on poor old people the next.

Actually I just remembered that the maintainance manager for one large garbage company was complaining about it to me too. Low limbs are beating the dickens out of their 300K trucks and he can't get the limbs along their routs pruned up.

I told him to push the safety issue with the cities. One truck was pinned in place till a tree company could come out and free it and the 30K specialized high pressure natural gas tank was damaged.
 
Reduce left stem with <12" cuts, leaving lower portion for damping effect, protection from sunscald, and translocation of resources over time.

Reduce and thin right stem <10% with cuts <2" to reduce leverage.

Ignore removalists who cannot document and describe their reasons. Keep telling them "I think you are ripping off your customers by making them cut their trees down preemptively. You need to consider morals and ethics and stump milking your customers for as much money as you can. Improve your skills as an arborist and stop relying on your chainsaw to fix your problems." :|:

Consider the source of extension bulletins: government employees with extremely low risk tolerance.
 
Jon there's no point in picking fights by putting words in people's mouths, aka trolling. This BCMA does not recommend any injection on a tree 3000 miles away that is managed by an eminently competent arborist; I'll leave that to him. The pruning is a bit easier to talk about based on pics so let's maybe focus on that first with no derails ok?

Grassy ass moochotcha!
 
The first post's about a 50 percent mortality rate along a street lined with stone pines, directly due to bark beetle infestations.

You n Nick's support of injecting already infested trees says it all.

Ain't you a little too old to doubt PhD pathologist's recs?

How's tree ages' track record on saving healthy, non-infested ash's in the east n Midwest from EAB to date mate?

Jomo
 
Great thread, Nick.

What's the integrity of the tension roots under the sidewalk, are they viable to hold that head weight? albeit the tree is small.

Can the tree handle a lever reducing pruning? without putting the tree in a spiral.

I like keeping the dead half, for ying and yang.....also often I tell homeowners to just watch it and see.
The injection is it coupled with some irrigation also?
 
Looks like it could be 2 trees, or at lest 2 trunks, hence 2 treatments seem reasonable.

PhDs are subject to biases and ignorance, just like the rest of us humans. Ruthless generalization from U pubs is like fundamentalist religion. Emancipate yourself from mental slavery,
None but ourselves can free our minds! (B. Marley)
 
So that's the rationale for injecting an infested tree too weak to push the chemical systemically upwards where Ips infestations start?

More like providing the over wintering larvae a safe secure abode until spring comes and the infestation spreads to neighbors nearby!

Jomo
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #69
Shouldn't we just cut all the trees down on the whole street since all of them surely have some bark beetles in them?
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #71
It's going down this week. Thursday or Friday- can't remember. I'm going to have the guys cut off the obvious dead. Anything half alive will be retained, as per clients request. We'll be injecting the right half of the tree with 10mL/inch Tree-age (we dilute with water to improve movement in the tree). I'll be doing a holy prayer and sacrificing a goat to the Ra the sun god to make sure all goes well.
 
:lol:a goat huh
well good luck
It will be fun to see what happens
I still think the new side walk was the beginning of the end for that tree
 
I think the BMP says the goat should be a virgin.

Smart to follow owner preference and retain living material; more resources left to translocate.

The role of City PW Dept is obvious; but we need to do more than point the finger while executing Basil Kutz. That's no fun!
 
NickfromWI said:
It's going down this week. Thursday or Friday- can't remember. I'm going to have the guys cut off the obvious dead. Anything half alive will be retained, as per clients request. We'll be injecting the right half of the tree with 10mL/inch Tree-age (we dilute with water to improve movement in the tree). I'll be doing a holy prayer and sacrificing a goat to the Ra the sun god to make sure all goes well.
Click to expand...

To be truly effective the goat must be a yearling and it has to be done on site under a full moon with at least two naked women holding down the goat.
 
Wish you well in these endeavors, Nick.
Will be interesting to hear follow up of how that particular tree responds to your tender mercies over the next couple of years.
Could placing a small statue of Hanuman in the tree obviate the slaughter of an innocent (the goat)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cory
Tree issue Q
Replies
12
Views
570
flushcut
flushcut
Treeaddict
Vines, vines, and more vines
Replies
2
Views
680
lxskllr
lxskllr
theTreeSpyder
verbiage translations: Folding a tree vs. Throwing a tree
Replies
10
Views
988
Burnham
Burnham
lxskllr
Tree Health - Cut Large Dead Branches, Or Leave Alone?
Replies
13
Views
2K
Bermy
Bermy
stig
The Farrier's horse and the shoemaker's kids.
2 3
Replies
71
Views
4K
stikine
stikine
Back
Top